Hasselblad lens adaptor for Minolta/Sony A-mount

<p>I see a few of these around the net for about $60 - $70 and as I have three 'blad lenses I'm tempted to try one. I don't care about AF or metering as I spot or incident meter with an L-558 for the 'blad in any case. I can also preview meter with the a900.<br>

Has anyone got first hand experience with these adaptors for H'blad-Minolta/Sony?<br>

I'll be using a 80mm, 120 Makro and 150mm and the cameras would be the Maxxum 9 and a900.<br>

I assume the lens shutter is simply not used and just left cranked open?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Alan</p>

<p>I know nothing about it, but I'd be VERY keen to see some shots done this way! I'd love to see Hassy sharpness on a Sony body!</p>

<p>Check out <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/carl-zeiss-sonnar-150mm-f4-test-shots_topic45883_page1.html?KW=hasselblad">this fairly recent thread</a> in dyxum.com</p>

<p><em><strong>SteveC:</strong> </em> I can assure you that several of my Minolta lenses are sharper than the Hassy (Carl Zeiss) medium format lenses. MF just doesn't have to try as hard as the film or sensor is larger. And one of my Sony lenses is an example of the best than can be... the 135 f/1.8 Carl Zeiss. (Need to add the 85 f/1.4 some day soon).<br>

Further, the "standard" Hasselblad macro lens for the V Hassy's, the 120 Makro is only 1:3 or so, so my Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro blows it completely away at 1:1.<br>

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355477&size=lg<br>

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8355535&size=lg (100% crop of above).<br>

Adding insult to injury the Hassy 120 Makro is a bit soft outside its sweet spot (closeups) whereas the Minolta 100 f/2.8 is exceptionally sharp through its range. <br>

So why would I bother? Well I don't have the CZ 85 f/1.4 (shortlisted) so I'll see how the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 does as a standard portrait lens on the a900.<br>

<strong><em>Paul De Ley</em> : </strong> Since Dyxum kicked me out for daring to say negative things about the a200, and thence about the admin of dyxum (our way or the highway), I try to avoid it. Maybe I'll make an exception for this. Thx.</p>

<p><em><strong>Paul De Ley</strong> </em> : those photos (@ dyxum) seem exceptional, I would bet the photog had more to do with it than the lens on the a700... however, one thing does strike me, the saturation seemed Velvia 50 like.... I do wonder what I'll get with the a900 and my lenses (which include the same lens he tested).<br>

Thanks again for the link.</p>

<p>Thanks for the indirect link to fotodiox...... what an absolute cornucopia of adapters they have on offer! Now if i can find one for all my M645 lenses, that WOULD make me a happy little fella......grin</p>

<p>Personally I don't see the point of converting another mount unless you are trying to use a lens that is otherewise unavailable (eg a T/S lens). Call me lazy but I actually quite like the convenience of having autofocus, not having to focus wide open and then manually stopping down. Plus it is pretty hard to get accurate focus anyway unless you change your focusing screen, which would of course negate any potential sharpness advantage.</p>

<p>And I'm with Alan, I think that the sharpness of medium format lenses would be pretty over-rated when converted for 35mm use. There are plenty of 35mm lenses that would be as sharp or sharper then the best medium format lenses out there.</p>

<p>My shots from my Mamiya 6 45mm lens which is supposedly just about the "perfect" medium format lens are not as sharp as shots I've gotten from some of my 35mm. Admittedly that isn't really a fair comparison because they have been scanned on different scanners</p>

<p>Ordered it from fotodiox (same as in the Dyxum linked article above).<br>

<em><strong>Jiung der Chung</strong> </em> : All your points are well understood but these are not really concerns given my rather slow and deliberate work pace, esp. in the studio.<br>

I don't have a 85 f/1.4 as I put it off during the lonely period of Minolta/Konica/Sony not having a full frame sensor. Perhaps I don't need one too quickly if the 80mm f/2.8 does a good job. I may order an 85 f/1.4 (Carl Zeiss) from Sony - but I'm also pining over the 16-35 f/2.8 (Carl Zeiss) from Sony.<br>

Regarding focus screens, I bough the Sony a900 Accute Matte "M" screen some time ago and I can attest to its aid in manual focus. Ironically, this is the same focus screen as up to date Hasselblad 500 series cameras (different shape of course). (Not sure about the H series, but it's likely that too).<br>

This will not "negate any potential sharpness advantage" as you claim above (I'm perplexed at your statement, actually).<br>

Regarding sharpness, (and being repetitive) I expect most of my Minolta/Sony prime lenses will be sharper than the Hasselblad lenses - your results with the Mamiya are not surprising at all. Although I really look forward to comparing the razor sharp Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro to the 120 Makro.</p>

<p>'<em>what an absolute cornucopia of adapters they have on offer! Now if i can find one for all my M645 lenses, that WOULD make me a happy little fella......grin'.......</em> Alas my cup has turned up empty.....bugger</p>

<p>Sorry Alan, I think I just worded it badly. I was trying to say that if you don't change your focusing screen as you have, the difficulties focusing with manual focus lenses would negate any potential sharpness advantages (if they exist) that a medium format lens might have.</p>

<p>Therefore I was agreeing with you on the points that you made. I don't do any studio stuff therefore using a converted lens comes with a certain price.</p>

<p><em><strong>Jiun Der Chung</strong> </em> : I realized what you meant to say after I posted my reply. Sorry.</p>